{ "id": 4178806, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FRANCIS DYE, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dye", "decision_date": "2010-10-19", "docket_number": "No. COA09-1574", "first_page": "473", "last_page": "482", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 N.C. App. 473" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "662 S.E.2d 559", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12641336 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "561", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/662/0559-01" ] }, { "cite": "619 S.E.2d 497", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633956 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "499" }, { "parenthetical": "citation, ellipses, and brackets omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/619/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "656 S.E.2d 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640370 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "699-700", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/656/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 N.C. App. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4159864 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/191/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 816", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135749, 135883, 135973, 135941 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0382-04", "/nc/353/0382-03", "/nc/353/0382-01", "/nc/353/0382-02" ] }, { "cite": "541 S.E.2d 490", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "496", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "496", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "496" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9442441 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "618" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 S.E.2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 N.C. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4729461 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/320/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3798151 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "37" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "691 S.E.2d 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "682 S.E.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "468", "parenthetical": "citations, quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N.C. App. 832", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4155039 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "835", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/188/0832-01" ] }, { "cite": "329 S.E.2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "657", "parenthetical": "\"The one objection made was lodged after the witness responded to the question. Defendant made no motion to strike the answer, and therefore waived the objection.\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 N.C. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4724129 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409", "parenthetical": "\"The one objection made was lodged after the witness responded to the question. Defendant made no motion to strike the answer, and therefore waived the objection.\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/313/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 S.E.2d 129", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138-39" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 886, "char_count": 21281, "ocr_confidence": 0.735, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.13719989080444459 }, "sha256": "8574c984092d083bb32d2c7778891b83b4253e23410d0480443b93491dc3129f", "simhash": "1:076ae42fff668cf4", "word_count": 3510 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:56:31.092499+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FRANCIS DYE, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of statutory rape, two counts of incest of a child, second degree rape, and incest. Defendant appeals, arguing the trial court erred by allowing certain testimony from an expert witness and in failing to grant defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial. For the following reasons, we find no error.\nI. Background\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that in 1993 Ms. Jane Smith and defendant began a romantic relationship; at the time Ms. Smith and defendant began dating, Ms. Smith\u2019s daughter, Mary, was four years old. In 1994, Ms. Smith and defendant moved in together. On 29 May 1999, Ms. Smith married defendant. In 2004, when Mary was fourteen years old, she wanted to join the marching band at her high school. Defendant told Mary she had to prove she deserved to be in band and then had sexual intercourse with her; Maiy began crying and told defendant, \u201c[T]his isn\u2019t right. You\u2019re my step-dad, you know, what are you doing.\u201d Over the course of 2004 and the next couple of years defendant forced Mary multiple times to have sexual intercourse, oral sex, and \u201canal penile sex.\u201d In September of 2006, Ms. Smith walked into her bedroom and saw defendant \u201con top of my daughter on the floor in my bedroom, having sex, penile to vaginal[.]\u201d\nOn or about 19 February 2007, defendant was indicted for two counts of statutory rape, two counts of incest of a child, second degree rape, incest, and committing a crime against nature. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of two counts of statutory rape, two counts of incest of a child, second degree rape, and incest. Defendant appeals.\nII. Dr. Narayan\u2019s Testimony\nOn appeal, two of defendant\u2019s issues focus on the testimony of Dr. Aditee Narayan, a pediatrician, \u201can assistant professor at Duke University in the Department of Pediatrics, ... an Associate Medical Director for the Child Abuse Neglect Medical Evaluation Team, . . . [and an] Associate Program Director for the Duke Residency Training Program.\u201d During defendant\u2019s trial Dr. Narayan testified \u201cas an expert in the area of general pediatrics, child behavior, diagnostic interviewing for purposes of a child medical evaluation, and the diagnosis and treatment of children suspected of being sexually abused.\u201d We will analyze defendant\u2019s two arguments separately.\nDefendant first argues that Dr. Narayan improperly testified as to her opinion of Mary\u2019s truthfulness. During direct examination by the State, Dr. Narayan was asked, \u201cBased on your interview and your physical examination of [Mary], do you have an opinion as to whether your findings are consistent with the child\u2019s history or disclosure of sexual assault?\u201d The following dialogue then took place:\nA Yes.\nMR. CAMPBELL [defendant\u2019s attorney]: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Overruled.\nQ What is your opinion?\nMR. CAMPBELL: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Hold on. Mr. Deputy, if you\u2019ll take the jury to the jury deliberation room.\n(JURY LEAVES THE COURTROOM)\nTHE COURT: Outside the presence of the jury, Doctor, you can answer.\nTHE WITNESS: I believe that, based upon my medical evaluation, her presentation is consistent with the history that she provided.\nTHE COURT: Any other questions?\nMS. PAUL: [State\u2019s attorney] No.\nTHE COURT: Mr. Campbell?\nMR. CAMPBELL: No. No argument.\nTHE COURT: Did you want to be heard?\nMR. CAMPBELL: No, Judge.\nTHE COURT: All right.\nMR. CAMPBELL: If that\u2019s going to be the answer.\nTHE COURT: All right, that was the answer right now.\nMR. CAMPBELL: I understand.\nTHE COURT: All right.\n(JURY RETURNS TO THE COURTROOM)\nTHE COURT: All right, your objection\u2019s overruled.\nQ Based on your examination and interview, do you have an opinion as to whether your findings are consistent with [Mary]\u2019s history of sexual assault?\nA I do have an opinion.\nQ What do you base that opinion on?\nA I base the opinion on her history, so the interview, her physical examination, a review of her records, I was able to form my opinion.\nQ What is that opinion?\nA My opinion is that, based on her presentation, her lengthy history, her physical examination, her behaviors, they\u2019re all consistent with the history that she provided of chronic sexual assault.\nMR. CAMPBELL: Objection.\nTHE COURT: Overruled.\nThus, defendant\u2019s attorney objected to Dr. Narayan\u2019s testimony, then stated during voir dire that he did not want to be heard as to any specific basis for his objection and seemingly withdrew his objection, only to object again to the same testimony once the jury returned and examination resumed. Defendant\u2019s attorney did not state a basis for either of his two objections.\nDefendant now contends that \u201cthe trial court erred in allowing the State\u2019s expert to give her opinion that [Mary] was truthful[.]\u201d (Original in all caps.) Defendant argues that Dr. Narayan\u2019s testimony that \u201c[m]y opinion is that, based on her presentation, her lengthy history, her physical examination, her behaviors, they\u2019re all consistent with the history of that she provided of chronic sexual assault\u201d was \u201cnot based on anything other than Dr[.] Narayan\u2019s circular reasoning[.]\u201d Even assuming defendant properly objected to this testimony after he failed to state a ground for his objection during voir dire and arguably even withdrew it, defendant has still failed to preserve this issue for appeal as he did not make a motion to strike the testimony. See State v. Curry, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014, 692 S.E.2d 129, 138-39 (2010) (\u201cWe first note that defendant\u2019s counsel objected after the witness had answered the question, and he failed to make a motion to strike; thus, defendant waived this objection. Furthermore, when the State repeated the question, defendant failed to object to either the question or the answer; this too would waive defendant\u2019s previous objection.\u201d (citation omitted); State v. Burgin, 313 N.C. 404, 409, 329 S.E.2d 653, 657 (1985) (\u201cThe one objection made was lodged after the witness responded to the question. Defendant made no motion to strike the answer, and therefore waived the objection.\u201d (citations omitted)).\nDefendant next argues that the trial court committed plain error in permitting Dr. Narayan\u2019s testimony regarding secondary gain, as this testimony was also effectively vouching for Mary\u2019s truthfulness. During the State\u2019s direct examination of Dr. Narayan, the following dialogue took place:\nQ ... Are you familiar with the concept of secondary gain?\nA Yes.\nQ If you would tell the jury what that is.\nA Secondary gain is if you do something to get something else out of it. So if you- \u2014 if you steal a cookie from the cookie jar in an effort to try to get attention from your mom because she\u2019s been so busy doing other things that she wasn\u2019t paying any attention to you, that would be secondary gain. When you do one act in order to get something else out of that.\nQ It\u2019s interesting the analogy that you just used. You steal a cookie from the cookie jar, you do something naughty in order to get attention from your mother because your mother\u2019s too busy.\nIn [Mary]\u2019s situation, did you have any opinion or thought on the issue of secondary gain?\nA I did.\nQ If you would just explain to the jury what you mean.\nA So the presence of secondary gain is something we always consider when we\u2019re asked to do these medical evaluations for children. Sometimes children will say things and you have to think about, well, why are they saying it, is there something else going on.\nThat\u2019s incredibly important because the recommendations that I would make for that child could be very different than the recommendations that I made for [Mary],\nI thought that there actually was really very little secondary gain for [Mary], She lost a great deal with this process, and I did not in my time with her feel that there was any secondary gain which she got out of this process.\nShe\u2019s not the one who disclosed anything, to begin with. Her mother walked in, and that\u2019s where everything started.\nAs to the preceding testimony, defendant argues that \u201cthe trial court plainly erred in allowing the State\u2019s expert to give her expert opinion that [Mary] was telling the truth.\u201d (Original in all caps.) Defendant contends that \u201cthe lack of a diagnostic physical finding means that the opinion only served to vouch for the witness\u2019s credibility. . . . The trial court erred in allowing Dr[.] Narayan to tell the jury that she had the expert \u2018feeling\u2019 that [Mary] was telling the truth.\u201d\nAs defendant did not object to the preceding testimony, he concedes that we will review it only for plain error.\nPlain error is an error that is so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial of a fair trial. A defendant must demonstrate not only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result. Accordingly, defendant must show that absent the erroneous admission of the challenged evidence, the jury probably would not have reached its verdict of guilty.\nState v. Cunningham, 188 N.C. App. 832, 835, 656 S.E.2d 697, 699-700 (2008) (citations and quotation marks omitted).\nDefendant cites no case law to support his argument that testimony regarding \u201csecondary gain\u201d should be considered as testimony that \u201cvouch[es] for the witness\u2019s credibility!.]\u201d However, even assuming arguendo that the admission of Dr. Narayan\u2019s testimony was erroneously admitted and impermissibly bolstered Mary\u2019s testimony, we still do not conclude that this error rises to the level of plain error. See id.\nIn State v. Boyd, this Court stated,\n[i]t is fundamental to a fair trial that the credibility of the witnesses be determined by the jury and thus an expert\u2019s opinion to the effect that a witness is credible, believable, or truthful is inadmissible. The admission of such an opinion is plain error when the State\u2019s case depends largely on the prosecuting witness\u2019s credibility. For example, in State v. Holloway, we found plain error in experts\u2019 opinions of a child\u2019s truthfulness when the child testified to sexual abuse not leaving physical injury, and the defendant testified to the contrary and presented evidence of a normal relationship with the child. In that case the child did not report the alleged incident until more than four weeks later and there was no suggestion of changed behavior, immediately after or subsequently.\nHere, in contrast, beyond the victim\u2019s testimony, the State also presented evidence that the victim, upset and crying, called her grandmother to pick her up early, gave consistent statements to her mother, Officer Bowens, Department of Social Services staff, and Ms. Dosher [, the social worker], and exhibited changed behavior following the alleged incident. Defendant did not testify. This additional evidence was such that it is unlikely that the jury would have reached a different conclusion absent [the social worker\u2019s] testimony about consistency and plausibility.\n\u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014, 682 S.E.2d 463, 468 (2009) (citations, quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted), disc. review denied, N.C. \u2014, \u2014 691 S.E.2d 414 (2010).\nHere, beyond Mary\u2019s testimony, the evidence included Ms. Smith\u2019s testimony regarding defendant\u2019s abnormal relationship with both his biological daughter and Mary and her personal observation of defendant having \u201cpenile to vaginal\u201d intercourse with Mary, as well as defendant\u2019s own statements that he had been sexually active with Mary for \u201ctwo years\u201d and that \u201che was a sick man.\u201d After Ms. Smith discovered defendant with Mary and removed defendant and his belongings from the house, defendant went to the Dominican Republic from where he later had to be extradited for purposes of prosecution. Just as in Boyd, \u201cthis additional evidence was such that it is unlikely that the jury would have reached a different conclusion absent [the expert\u2019s] testimony[.]\u201d Id. Accordingly, both of defendant\u2019s arguments regarding Dr. Narayan\u2019s testimony are overruled.\nIII. Motion for Mistrial\nLastly, defendant contends that \u201cthe trial court erred in denying Mr. Dye\u2019s motion for mistrial.\u201d (Original in all caps.) During defendant\u2019s attorney\u2019s closing argument, Mary interrupted at least twice. The first time Mary told defendant\u2019s counsel, \u201cYou shut up, how dare you say I\u2019m unbelievable. I can\u2019t 'listen to this. Those were his words coming out of his mouth. How dare he torture me more. Why is he doing this to me?\u201d The jury was sent out of the courtroom and the trial court informed the State\u2019s attorney that Mary would not be permitted to remain in the courtroom unless she was \u201cunder control.\u201d Mary apologized and agreed to \u201cbe quiet.\u201d The jury returned to the courtroom and Mr. Campbell resumed his closing argument only to once again be interrupted.\nFrom the transcript it is not clear what caused the second interruption, but after the jury retired for deliberation the trial court described the entire incident as follows:\n[T]he Court does recall that there were at least two outbursts by ... [Mary] during Mr. Campbell\u2019s argument. The Court warned her twice that she would have to remain calm if we were to continue. When she did not remain calm, the Court asked that she be escorted from the courtroom, which she was.\nMr. Campbell was able to continue with his argument. Although counsel indicates she came back in the courtroom, the Court during its jury instructions did not see her come back in the courtroom. I was paying attention to the jury as I read the jury instructions. I did not see the jury disrupted by . . . [Mary], if she did return to the courtroom.\nThe Court does find that at least the two outbursts were intentional on .. [MaryJ\u2019s behalf. The Court did note that she appeared to have some sort of asthmatic attack during the course of Mr. Campbell\u2019s argument. Although it was disruptive in that'he could not continue, the Court did not find, does not find, that that was intentional on her part.\nAs I said earlier, I did not see . . . [Mary] come back in the courtroom as I was instructing the jury, and if she had some sort of attack, the Court did not notice it. I was watching the jury. I did not see that the jury was distracted by any attack in the court.\nThe trial court then asked Mr. Campbell, \u201cWere you moving for a mistrial?\u201d To which Mr. Campbell responded, \u201cNo, Judge, not at this time.\u201d The trial court then determined that because Mr. Campbell was not requesting a mistrial, it would not grant one ex mero motu. The jury continued deliberations and after the verdicts were read, Mr. Campbell moved for a mistrial which was subsequently denied.\nWe first note that it is problematic for defendant to directly state to the trial court that he did not want a mistrial and to fail to request any other remedial action by the trial court, only to request mistrial upon learning that the jury had found him guilty on all the charges, and to now base his argument on appeal on the denial of his belated request. Defendant argues before us that Mary\u2019s \u201cconduct inside the courtroom resulted in substantial and irreparable prejudice to Mr. Dye\u2019s defense.\u201d However, according to defendant, the \u201csubstantial and irreparable prejudice\u201d was not apparent until after the jury had found defendant guilty of all charges.\nOne of the purposes of requiring parties to object and make motions before the trial court is so that the trial court has the opportunity to correct any errors. See Reep v. Beck, 360 N.C. 34, 37, 619 S.E.2d 497, 499 (2005).\nRule 10(b)(1) provides, in part, that to preserve a question for appellate review, \u2018a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make.\u2019 N.C.R. App. R 10(b)(1). We have observed that:\nThis subsection of Rule 10 is directed to matters which occur at trial and upon which the trial court must be given an opportunity to rule in order to preserve the question for appeal. The purpose of the rule is to require a party to call the court\u2019s attention to a matter upon which he or she wants a ruling before he or she can assign error to the matter on appeal.\nId. (citation, ellipses, and brackets omitted). The very purpose of Rule 10(b)(1) is disregarded by defendant\u2019s attempt to receive a favorable ruling only after the jury has returned with its verdicts, where the trial court had previously given him the opportunity to request mistrial or other remedial action.\nFurthermore, a \u201c[m]istrial is a drastic remedy, warranted only for such serious improprieties as would make it impossible to attain a fair and impartial verdict.\u201d State v. Smith, 320 N.C. 404, 418, 358 S.E.2d 329, 337 (1987) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The trial court \u201cmust declare a mistrial upon the defendant\u2019s motion if there occurs during the trial an error or legal defect in the proceedings, or conduct inside or outside the courtroom, resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant\u2019s case.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1061 (2003). However, \u201c[n]ot every disruptive event which occurs during trial automatically requires the court to- declare a mistrial.\u201d State v. Allen, 141 N.C. App. 610, 617, 541 S.E.2d 490, 496 (2000) (citation omitted), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 353 N.C. 382, 547 S.E.2d 816 (2001). \u201cOur standard of review when examining a trial court\u2019s denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion.\u201d State v. Simmons, 191 N.C. App. 224, 227, 662 S.E.2d 559, 561 (2008) (citation omitted).\nDefendant focuses his argument here on the lack of a curative instruction, but as our Court stated in Allen,\ndefendant\u2019s attorney made no request for a curative instruction or other remedial action. Our rule has long been that where a charge fully instructs the jury on substantive features of the case, defines and applies the law thereto, the trial court is not required to instruct on a subordinate feature of the case absent a special request. As the court noted in Blackstock, such an instruction may well have highlighted the witness\u2019s emotional state; indeed it is possible that the defense attorney declined to request a curative instruction because of the likelihood it would emphasize the witness\u2019s outburst.\nAllen, 141 N.C. App. at 618, 541 S.E.2d at 496 (citations and quotation marks omitted).\nHere, after Mary\u2019s initial outburst, the trial court removed the jury from the courtroom and specifically instructed that Mary must remain quiet and Mary verbally agreed. After Mary\u2019s second outburst, the trial court had Mary removed completely from the courtroom until after Mr. Campbell had finished his closing argument and provided defendant an opportunity to request any remedial measures, including mistrial. Defendant declined to make any requests until after the jury had returned its verdict. As the trial court took immediate action to respond to the outburst, eventually banned Mary from the courtroom, and provided defendant with an opportunity to make any motions or request further instructions, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial. See Allen at 618, 541 S.E.2d at 496. This argument is overruled.\nIV. Conclusion\nFor the foregoing reasons, we find no error.\nNO ERROR.\nJudges McGEE and HUNTER, JR., Robert N. concur.\n. Pseudonyms will be used to protect the identity of the victim.", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Grumpier, for the State.", "Russell J. Hollers III, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN FRANCIS DYE, Defendant\nNo. COA09-1574\n(Filed 19 October 2010)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to make motion to strike testimony\nAlthough defendant contended that the trial court erred in a statutory rape, second-degree rape, and incest case by allowing a pediatrician to testify as to her opinion of the minor victim\u2019s truthfulness, this argument was not preserved. Even assuming defendant properly objected to the testimony he did not make a motion to strike. Further, defendant failed to object to the State repeating the question or the answer.\n2. Evidence\u2014 expert testimony \u2014 sexual abuse of child \u2014 secondary gain \u2014 no prejudicial error\nThe trial court did not commit plain error in a statutory rape, second-degree rape, and incest case by permitting a pediatrician\u2019s testimony regarding secondary gain. Even assuming arguendo that the testimony was erroneously admitted and that it impermissibly bolstered the minor\u2019s testimony, the error did not arise to plain error given the overwhelming evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt.\n3. Criminal Law\u2014 denial of motion for mistrial \u2014 victim outbursts during closing arguments\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial made after the jury\u2019s verdict in a statutory rape, second-degree rape, and incest case based on the victim\u2019s outbursts during defense counsel\u2019s closing arguments. The trial court took immediate action to respond to the outburst, eventually banned the victim from the courtroom, and provided defendant with an opportunity to make any motions or request further instructions during the trial.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered on or about 28 April 2009 by Judge Orlando F. Hudson in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 May 2010.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Grumpier, for the State.\nRussell J. Hollers III, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0473-01", "first_page_order": 497, "last_page_order": 506 }